Team drive: inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat about official status and notes paging/offset/version inspection, but it does not explain return format or operational limits, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no obvious filler; the official-status caveat is compact and useful. The first sentence is dense with jargon but still front-loads the core inspection behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema and strong read-only annotations, the description does not need to document return values. It still omits sibling routing and limit semantics, leaving the agent without full context for choosing and configuring the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%: file_id and cursor are documented, while limit is not. The description's 'page through' wording loosely connects to pagination but does not explain limit semantics or add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies actions such as verifying the current source hash and paging through indexed structure groups with segment offsets, format limitations, and version. However, it never directly names the team-drive resource or clearly distinguishes this inspection from siblings like team_drive_status or team_drive_read, so the purpose remains somewhat opaque.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is the caveat that a recent modification time does not establish official status. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for official-status verification rather than status, read, or search calls.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.